TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Mother suing cereal companies!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mother suing cereal companies!

post #1 of 27
3/30/05 at 6:33am
Thread Starter 
Mother Sues over "deceiving labels"

What in the world?

okay.. I'm not a mum, but I worked in a daycare... I don't care if there's a million carbs in a sugar cereal, but if there's less sugar in a 2 year old's system, they're easier to handle..

Beyond which, it's her responsibility as a mother to read the labels to see if she wants her kid eating that.

I suppose if we can sue for burning our crotches with coffee.. this is the next step... It makes me sad to be human.
Reply
post #2 of 27
3/30/05 at 6:42am
Well, McDonald's made all those people fat didn't they? That's just absurd. Why people think they can sue do to their own stupid judgement is beyond me.
Reply
post #3 of 27
3/30/05 at 6:59am
Ugh, another person suing because of their own negligence. I'm sorry, but the last I checked it was not these companies responsibilities to hold our hands in decision making processes and make sure we have all of our "facts" straight before we purchase. I'm so tired of people getting away with bull claims like this. It parallels the trend in schools for parents to take no responsibility for their childrens behavior and blame the teacher, when good manners and life skills should be taught at HOME. Things like this cereal case truly disgust me.
Reply
post #4 of 27
3/30/05 at 9:51am
Oh my gosh! I saw this news report on the deceiving labels sometime back and I was thinking to myself, hmm someone is going to sue the makers for deceptive advertising and I was right.

I feel the cereal company is doing some sleight of hand with the advertising. After all if one bring out an alternative version of the same product with the words "low sugar" there is an assumption that it is healthy or at least healthier. After all why come up with a product that cost more, taste exactly the same unless they think a person would buy it because of the belief that low sugar means it is healtier.

How many of you know that "The body treats refined carbohydrates the same as sugar so there is no real net nutritional benefit." So for a person to realise that it is less healthy, one would need to understand the above AND take the old box and compare it to the new and make a calculation that the increase in refined carbohydrates equates to the decrease in sugar.
Reply
post #5 of 27
3/30/05 at 10:12am
Do the cereals actually contain less sugar? Yes? Then what they say is true. It isn't the cereal maker's fault that this woman isn't smart enough to figure out that Fruity Pebbles is going to make her kids more hyper than Cheerios. It isn't their job to educate people to read the labels, just to provide the information.
Reply
post #6 of 27
3/30/05 at 10:13am
Thread Starter 
Beh. As an advertiser, I'm a little insulted. it's not like they took the same sugar packed cereal and reboxed it, and said "now with less sugar" when it was exactly the same. That, I would understand, but really It says on the boxes less SUGAR, which is good, as even simple carbs don't give the sugar high effect, and will cause less problems with the teeth.. so I'm mostly happy with it. The advertising never says that it is a healthier way to start the day than the originals.. It simply iterates the low sugar content in the food. Which is in fact, true.

It is the job of the consumer to choose the product based on their personal criteria of what they want/don't want.

If you have a problem with the kids cereals, make 'em eat corn flakes. yeesh.
Reply
post #7 of 27
3/30/05 at 10:23am
I am a mom and think that this one is an idiot!!!

If you want your child to eat healthy, get off your A$$ and fix them a real breakfast. You know, COOK! How about some eggs and toast? Pancakes & fruit?

This woman makes me mad. It's common knowledge that cereal and fast foods are not healthy. What planet is she from?
Reply
post #8 of 27
3/30/05 at 10:33am
Hee, hee history of the case so far:
The Original expert Report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7248890/
7 days later after hearing of the above she
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7320366/
Reply
post #9 of 27
3/30/05 at 10:58am
She's bored with her life and apparently a dimrod. So what does she do? Sue somebody over something ignorant!

Like the guy in California a few yrs ago who sued the makers of Oreo's, saying how bad the cookies are for you and they should carry a warning (the man should probably have learned "will power" and not BOUGHT the COOKIES).

There was a lawyer's office across from where I worked a few yrs ago. The gal who fielded calls for the lawyer said once, a man called and said he wanted to sue Charmin, because the toilet paper stated on the label it was "soft and soothing", yet when he used it, it was "hard and crumbly" and caused him pain.

She laughed and hung up on him.
Reply
post #10 of 27
3/30/05 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyedgirl
Like the guy in California a few yrs ago who sued the makers of Oreo's, saying how bad the cookies are for you and they should carry a warning (the man should probably have learned "will power" and not BOUGHT the COOKIES).
This type of person should have a warning tattooed on his forehead for anyone who wishes to mate with him!!!!
Reply
post #11 of 27
3/30/05 at 11:59am
all i can say is.. LOL!
and yes she should get off her arse and prepare her kids a better breakfast!
Reply
post #12 of 27
3/31/05 at 2:55am
Like a lot of greedy people all over the world, they have money symbols in their eyes.
Reply
post #13 of 27
3/31/05 at 6:55am
A lot of folks are looking for ways to find quick, easy $$ without working for them and have gone SUE CRAZY.

If they spent as much time and energy fixing a decent breakfast/giving up the oreos/etc., etc., as they do chasing ambulances (so to speak) they would be better off physically and emotionally.
Reply
post #14 of 27
3/31/05 at 8:12am
Maybe she'll have to pay for ALL of the court costs when she loses. That might teach HER a lesson about frivilous lawsuits.

Also, the mom said "I had very seldom purchased the regular cereal for them," Hardee said. "When I saw the reduced sugar, I figured it wouldn't matter if occasionally I gave them that because [I thought] it was healthier."

If she is giving them the cereal "occasionally" just how is it causing harm?
Reply
post #15 of 27
3/31/05 at 9:22am
If she wants to feed her kids ceral, great - they can eat what I do - whole wheat. Fast - easy - full of fiber - and best yet - no sugar.
Reply
post #16 of 27
3/31/05 at 7:07pm
A question for our members abroad:
Does this lunacy occur there, too, or is it just an American thing?
Reply
post #17 of 27
3/31/05 at 8:18pm
One thing they should sue over is the price of a box of cereal...now that's criminal! LOL
Reply
post #18 of 27
3/31/05 at 8:36pm
Another healthy solution that tastes wonderfully? Raw oats and Grapenuts. With Rice milk - it's even better!
Reply
post #19 of 27
4/1/05 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
One thing they should sue over is the price of a box of cereal...now that's criminal! LOL
I agree!!! I don't know the last time I bought a name brand. I have no problem with Toasted Oats rather than Cheerios though...all the same to me. Malt-O-Meal even comes in a ziplock bag!
Reply
post #20 of 27
4/1/05 at 7:14am
Just want to point out that some of the response does not really match the claim the woman is making.

Q: If she is giving them the cereal "occasionally" just how is it causing harm?
A: The issue is not whether the children was harmed by the cereal but rather it is focused on the alleged false or misleading advertising.

Q: She should have given the kids something healthier.
A: That again is not the issue. It is somewhat like a doctor who botched a heart operation telling the patient or estate that if the person had lived a healthy life he would not have needed the operation so the fact that the doctor accidently the heart on the floor is not the true cause of the mishap.

My theory on why US love to sue are:
1) Jury is allowed to control the amount of damages, which often leads to inflated payments.
2) Partially connected to that is the availability of jury trial. An impressive lawyer may persuade a jury one way or another but to an experienced judge, who have seen it all, it may not be that impressive.
3) Perhaps all the constant telling of people to stand up for their rights and not be taken advantaged have created a group of people that fight to the bitter end.
Reply
post #21 of 27
4/1/05 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me-n-my guys
A question for our members abroad:
Does this lunacy occur there, too, or is it just an American thing?
It's caught on with regards to suing people involved in accidents, but were not this bad, YET!!.

It'll come though mark my words!
Reply
post #22 of 27
4/1/05 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpy
Just want to point out that some of the response does not really match the claim the woman is making.

Q: If she is giving them the cereal "occasionally" just how is it causing harm?
A: The issue is not whether the children was harmed by the cereal but rather it is focused on the alleged false or misleading advertising.

Q: She should have given the kids something healthier.
A: That again is not the issue. It is somewhat like a doctor who botched a heart operation telling the patient or estate that if the person had lived a healthy life he would not have needed the operation so the fact that the doctor accidently the heart on the floor is not the true cause of the mishap.

My theory on why US love to sue are:
1) Jury is allowed to control the amount of damages, which often leads to inflated payments.
2) Partially connected to that is the availability of jury trial. An impressive lawyer may persuade a jury one way or another but to an experienced judge, who have seen it all, it may not be that impressive.
3) Perhaps all the constant telling of people to stand up for their rights and not be taken advantaged have created a group of people that fight to the bitter end.
In response to #1: Chances are she would not win the lawsuit because no one was harmed.
Reply
post #23 of 27
4/1/05 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me-n-my guys
A question for our members abroad:
Does this lunacy occur there, too, or is it just an American thing?
It's catching on here, but the damages awarded are nowhere near U.S. levels, so there's not as much incentive to sue.
Reply
post #24 of 27
4/2/05 at 11:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat
In response to #1: Chances are she would not win the lawsuit because no one was harmed.
Harm is not really necessary for a claim in false advertising to succeed. But then damages if awarded in such an instance would be quite small which leads to the need for this to be a class action to succeed. The hurdle which I find it difficult for them to overcome is the certification of the class.

Another point which I want to raise. It is possible to construct a no-fault compensation system for certain areas such as vehicle accidents and injuries, such as New Zealand.

The high damages in US is mainly because of punitive damages rather than actual damages. On one hand if one removes punitive damages or cap it then suits may not be as common. Yet on the other hand if damages are capped, the large corporation may calculate and decide that it is cheaper or more profitable to continue an action rather than to amend it.
Reply
post #25 of 27
4/2/05 at 11:41pm


What a dumb woman....

Sorry that is the most intelligent thing I can come up with on such a stupid lawsuit...
Reply
post #26 of 27
4/3/05 at 8:12am
This lawsuit makes sense to me.

These are very large corporations who are engaging in extremely misleading advertising. Someone has to call them on it. Maybe everyone on The Cat Site feeds their children healthful foods, but this will effect a lot of people.

Children see these ads on TV and think now they've overcome their parents objections to them. They show the boxes to their mothers, who see the lables and believe them to be better foods for their children. Busy parents can't be expected to be nutritionally well-informed all the time.

Thank you, AP, for bringing this out.
Reply
post #27 of 27
4/5/05 at 12:31am
Anything for money! People are too "sue happy" these days.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Mother suing cereal companies!